In another topic (now closed) Andrew described that a code similar to
HansPeter's example did run correctly on a dual core machine, but
produced errors on a machine with more cores.
Now I understand that threaded FPC user programs are supposed to be done
in a Posix compliant way and
Michael Schnell wrote:
In another topic (now closed) Andrew described that a code similar to
HansPeter's example did run correctly on a dual core machine, but
produced errors on a machine with more cores.
I've not been reading every message. Definitive URL?
OTOH if some synchronization
On 07/01/2011 11:26 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Michael Schnell wrote:
In another topic (now closed) Andrew described that a code similar to
HansPeter's example did run correctly on a dual core machine, but
produced errors on a machine with more cores.
I've not been reading every message.
2011/7/1 Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de:
On 07/01/2011 11:26 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Michael Schnell wrote:
In another topic (now closed) Andrew described that a code similar to
HansPeter's example did run correctly on a dual core machine, but produced
errors on a machine with more
On 07/01/2011 02:00 PM, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I won't call that a definitive URL, but some vague indication. That is
more than 200 mails at least. I'd expected you to give a link to the
email in the archives where Andrew described a code.
So, which link to click on
2011/7/1 Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de:
On 07/01/2011 02:00 PM, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I won't call that a definitive URL, but some vague indication. That is
more than 200 mails at least. I'd expected you to give a link to the
email in the archives where Andrew described a code.
So,
On 07/01/2011 03:03 PM, Vincent Snijders wrote:
So how you expect us to find the description *you* want us to read in
all those mails, if even you cannot find it.
I can't find it in the backlog website. I did find it in my mailstore
(no idea if this helps, though):
This is the message of
Vincent Snijders wrote:
2011/7/1 Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de:
On 07/01/2011 02:00 PM, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I won't call that a definitive URL, but some vague indication. That is
more than 200 mails at least. I'd expected you to give a link to the
email in the archives where Andrew
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk wrote:
Fair play, he /has/ said he's mailed Andrew looking for source.
I never received such email. But to Michael's defense, Google mail
isn't the product it once was.
However under the circumstances we've
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
Michael Schnell wrote:
In another topic (now closed) Andrew described that a code similar to
HansPeter's example did run correctly on a dual core machine, but produced
errors on a machine with more cores.
I've not been reading every message. Definitive URL?
I
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
IMO a linked list can not work flawlessly, until at least a
multiple-read-exclusive-write lock is used. While an exclusive-write lock
can ensure list consistency, every unsynchronized reader will be fooled by
Hello FPC,
Friday, July 1, 2011, 6:44:44 PM, you wrote:
HPD This scenario was reflected in my example (bi-linked list update).
HPD The very last sentence deserves clarification. When not *all*
HPD assignments are protected by a CS, the use of Interlocked assignments
HPD only can improve cache
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, José Mejuto joshy...@gmail.com wrote:
This code will crash at a given time, maybe 1 millisecond, maybe 2
days, but it will crash.
Yes. It will fail. Access to a,b are forbidden without acquiring a lock.
Cache coherence is maintained by the hardware,
Hello,
This thread is now also moderated. See
http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/fpc-other/2011-July/000637.html for the
reason why.
Please start/continue any discussions about how to safely program in a
multithreaded way on the fpc-other list (unless it's about concrete proposals
for
14 matches
Mail list logo
